How to stop people doing pointless degrees Watch

This discussion is closed.
Exceptional
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#161
Report 4 years ago
#161
Where does such snobbery come from? You aren't God's gift nor more intelligent for doing a STEM degree over the aforementioned. People don't pick a degree course that isn't STEM because they can't do it - you can get into RG universities for Engineering, Physics and others with a foundation year with BBC or below before progressing onto the degrees you boast about with such hyperbole. How can you sit there and say that people with A*AA/AAA doing Law or Economics or Psychology are inferior when they're passionate people exploring the area that interests them more and are important within their own rights?

Grow up. This is child's play.
0
thechibi
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#162
Report 4 years ago
#162
Depends on what one means by a useless degree. Even if you major in Underwater Basketweaving or whatever, you still learn how to balance a workload, maintaining a schedule, performing tasks on demand, understanding what's asked of you, etc. A degree offers skills beyond whatever label happens to get stuck on it.

These days it's often less about what you know and more about who you know as well as your ability to present yourself and deal with people. Networking is a vastly underrated skill to have. An awkward STEM-lord is going to struggle if they can't get through an interview. Does that mean their degree was pointless?
0
bitofageek
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#163
Report 4 years ago
#163
(Original post by BioStudentx)
Not Stem or Oxbridge.
So not economics at LSE? Not Law at Durham? Not modern languages at UCL?


Posted from TSR Mobile
0
guntby
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#164
Report 4 years ago
#164
Science snobs are the worst kind of people.
0
Lainathiel
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#165
Report 4 years ago
#165
I'm intending to do medicine at university: for my fourth AS option, I could have picked physics or further maths and therefore had a totally STEM A-level profile, but no, I took philosophy instead. Why? Because I adore the subject and it gives me both a break and a different perspective from a world that is completely scientific. Even though it will put an awful lot more pressure on my next year when I need to get the best grades in order to be a medic, I'm going to take all four subjects next year, and for exactly the same reason. I don't particularly care if some consider humanities subjects to be 'pointless', because I would have a dramatically different mindset if I had not decided to choose that subject.

Also, Pythagoras' mathematical theorem? Developed by an ancient Greek philosopher.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
whorace
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#166
Report 4 years ago
#166
(Original post by Lainathiel)
I'm intending to do medicine at university: for my fourth AS option, I could have picked physics or further maths and therefore had a totally STEM A-level profile, but no, I took philosophy instead. Why? Because I adore the subject and it gives me both a break and a different perspective from a world that is completely scientific. Even though it will put an awful lot more pressure on my next year when I need to get the best grades in order to be a medic, I'm going to take all four subjects next year, and for exactly the same reason. I don't particularly care if some consider humanities subjects to be 'pointless', because I would have a dramatically different mindset if I had not decided to choose that subject.

Also, Pythagoras' mathematical theorem? Developed by an ancient Greek philosopher.

Posted from TSR Mobile
In a very generic sense of the term, he was by all accounts a mathematician who believed number and music were unified (he influenced the Platonic idea of ideal forms though)
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#167
Report 4 years ago
#167
Famous historical philosophers tend to be mathematcians and vice versa. The subjects are sisters.
0
whorace
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#168
Report 4 years ago
#168
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
1 + 4 = 5 then U exists

U = unicorns.

Unicorns exist.

Therefor unicorn horns exist.

Now please respect my position and let me take load so money in academia for my unicorn theology based on the logic surrounding unicorn horns philosophy research.

That';s basically what theology is. It's philosophy sure, but the base assumption of it does not in anyway have grounding in reality so it all fulls apart. It;s bad philosophy.

I'm goign to bed and will dream fo unicorns. My sensors will tell me I am seeing unicorns so they must exist.
Theology made sense when you considered Aristotelian physics the most advanced, it assumed that all things acted towards final purposes which must implicitly assume the existence of a prime mover. Theology died when Aristotle (figuratively) died.
0
whorace
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#169
Report 4 years ago
#169
(Original post by KingStannis)
Famous historical philosophers tend to be mathematcians and vice versa. The subjects are sisters.
I may be wrong but the ancients didn't distinguish between the two, or even physics proper, pretty much all enquiry was considered philosophy, which while fine until around the 18th century its antiquated now.
0
The_Mighty_Bush
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#170
Report 4 years ago
#170
Make them pay for it and have more parents who teach their children something better than just "do what you want".
0
Maker
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#171
Report 4 years ago
#171
(Original post by thechibi)
Depends on what one means by a useless degree. Even if you major in Underwater Basketweaving or whatever, you still learn how to balance a workload, maintaining a schedule, performing tasks on demand, understanding what's asked of you, etc. A degree offers skills beyond whatever label happens to get stuck on it.

These days it's often less about what you know and more about who you know as well as your ability to present yourself and deal with people. Networking is a vastly underrated skill to have. An awkward STEM-lord is going to struggle if they can't get through an interview. Does that mean their degree was pointless?
Which may explain why so many companies have so much dead wood in high places.
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#172
Report 4 years ago
#172
(Original post by whorace)
I may be wrong but the ancients didn't distinguish between the two, or even physics proper, pretty much all enquiry was considered philosophy, which while fine until around the 18th century its antiquated now.
kinda but specifically maths and phil are linked and the link continues long after other subjects emerge out of philosophy.
0
whorace
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#173
Report 4 years ago
#173
(Original post by KingStannis)
kinda but specifically maths and phil are linked and the link continues long after other subjects emerge out of philosophy.
Well many mathematicians contributed to philosophy in the twentieth century, set theory, formal logic, and so on, but I think saying that mathematicians are philosophers is missing the point, bin men think but no one attributes it to philosophy. Obviously some of them are philosophers (Russell clearly was since he wrote a history of the subject) but a lot of the questions that are asked now are quite specifically limited to non-mathematical considerations like ethics.
0
KingStannis
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#174
Report 4 years ago
#174
(Original post by whorace)
Well many mathematicians contributed to philosophy in the twentieth century, set theory, formal logic, and so on, but I think saying that mathematicians are philosophers is missing the point, bin men think but no one attributes it to philosophy. Obviously some of them are philosophers (Russell clearly was since he wrote a history of the subject) but a lot of the questions that are asked now are quite specifically limited to non-mathematical considerations like ethics.
but ethicists would still use logic and stuff. in method the subjects are similar.
0
whorace
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#175
Report 4 years ago
#175
(Original post by KingStannis)
but ethicists would still use logic and stuff. in method the subjects are similar.
You cant think without these things so the word becomes trivial if applied so generally, and I think we both agree that philosophy is not really a trivial subject, it does have relevance. Also this is one sided since there is a lot of philosophy now which is more literary (if you can describe some of the continental stuff as that), existentialism is certainly interesting but not mathematical.

The sort of geometrical method that Descartes used is antiquated now (in philosophy, its still relevant in maths obviously).
0
Emaemmaemily
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#176
Report 4 years ago
#176
If the world was made up of just scientists, society would cease to function properly. We need people in all of the other jobs throughout society, so all of this STEM snobbery is ridiculous.
0
ArundelRanger
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#177
Report 4 years ago
#177
(Original post by BioStudentx)
I know a lot of people like to take art, psychology, sociology, geography, history, English, economics at Unis like Manchester met. So my idea is that we should lower the amount we pay for uni but everyone has to pay - no matter how much their salary is after they have left uni. This could discourage people to do the pointless degrees above.
Why do you believe those are pointless degrees?
1
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#178
Report 4 years ago
#178
(Original post by whorace)
Theology made sense when you considered Aristotelian physics the most advanced, it assumed that all things acted towards final purposes which must implicitly assume the existence of a prime mover. Theology died when Aristotle (figuratively) died.
No it doesn't. In the same way just because cosmology points towards a central point from which the universe we live in expanded out from deosn't implicitly mean anything of the sort either.
0
I Procrastinate
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#179
Report 4 years ago
#179
You think psychology is pointless :cry2:




I don't give a ****. :hoppy:
0
whorace
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#180
Report 4 years ago
#180
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
No it doesn't. In the same way just because cosmology points towards a central point from which the universe we live in expanded out from deosn't implicitly mean anything of the sort either.
It does if you are working within an Aristotelian understanding of motion... You can argue from modern physics if you like, but you need to understand why otherwise intelligent people thought like this. Thomas Aquinas clearly wasn't an idiot.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (128)
18.21%
It's just nice to be back! (193)
27.45%
Not great so far... (251)
35.7%
I want to drop out! (131)
18.63%

Watched Threads

View All